People v. Harris CA3

Filed 11/18/14 P. v. Harris CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C069406

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 10F05930 & 10F05349) v.

DENNIS HARRIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Dennis Harris appeals following his conviction on three counts of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.)1 Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence information law enforcement received from a computer aided dispatch printout of a 911 call linking defendant to a white Dodge Magnum, similar to a car seen leaving the last of the robberies for which he was convicted. Defendant contends that the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code in effect at the time of the charged offenses.

1

evidence was hearsay and admitting such information was a violation of his confrontation and fair trial rights. We conclude that, whether the evidence was admitted for a hearsay or nonhearsay purpose, it was irrelevant and its admission was error. The error, however, was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Underlying Facts and Criminal Charges In August 2010, robberies were committed at a Pizza Hut, a Metro PCS Store, and an International House of Pancakes (IHOP). The robberies at Pizza Hut and the IHOP were recorded on video tape. Following the robbery at the IHOP, a witness saw the robber get into the passenger side of a white Dodge Magnum. While investigating these robberies, Detective Mike French reviewed a “computer aided dispatch” log (CAD log) from a 911 call made by Laretha Jackson, defendant’s wife. The CAD log contained Jackson’s allegation that defendant stole her white Dodge Magnum on August 29, 2010, the day after the IHOP robbery. After reading about the possible connection between defendant and a white Dodge Magnum, Detective French looked at a picture of defendant; he thought defendant “looked similar” to the person who robbed the Pizza Hut and the IHOP. Thereafter, Detective French investigated defendant as a suspect in the robberies. During that investigation, witnesses from each of the robberies identified defendant in a photographic line-up as the person who robbed their respective stores. After further investigation, defendant was arrested. Defendant was charged with four counts of robbery (§ 211) and related gun use enhancements (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). Jury trial began in May 2011, but ended in a mistrial on June 1, 2011. One count of robbery was then dismissed on the prosecution’s own motion, and an amended information was filed charging defendant with three counts of robbery and related gun enhancements.